Re: svn status proposal

Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <brane@xbc.nu> writes:

> 1. Show local modifications only: "svn st" (outputs in 2-column format)
> 2. Show the status of all version-controlled files in the WC: "svn st
> --verbose" (outputs in 4-column format)
> 3. Show status of WC and server, including the changes "svn up" would
> make: "svn st --update" (touches the network, implies --verbose).

Karl and I don't think that the -v and -u flags should imply one
another in *any* direction. I don't want my 'svn st -u' to show me
every single file under version control. I want it to show me only
"interesting" entries -- only those with local mods and/or
out-of-dateness.

Please, independent of how many output formats there may be, let's not
comingle these switches.

> What I /haven't/ yet seen in this discussion is a good argument
> /against/ havng a short format, except "consistency".

Hmmm. Maybe Karl can address this issue... he's done quite a bit of
reading on UI design, and is trying to reward "habituation". Karl?

> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Emerson
> :-)

"A little foolishness is the consistency of hobgoblin minds." :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:42 2006